Biswanath Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Biswanath Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted: petitioner directed to be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 277 of 2022, subject to the three stated conditions (presence on every trial date; no indulgence in any or other similar offence; no tampering with prosecution evidences or influencing of prosecution witnesses); violation entails cancellation of bail and custody by the Trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 277 of 2022 (Sections 323, 406, 504 and 506/34 IPC) and in judicial custody since 18.01.2024, should be released on regular bail.

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the materials available against the petitioner, and the fact that the charge sheet had been submitted, the presiding judge was inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail.

Ratio / Principle

Release on bail was made subject to conditions: (1) the petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court; (2) he shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial; and (3) he shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

Key takeaways

Violation of the aforesaid conditions would result in cancellation of the petitioner's bail and his being taken into custody by the learned Trial Court itself.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

REGULAR BAIL GRANTED — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 3129 of 2024 (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; order dated 02 August 2024): Biswanath Gosh, accused in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 277 of 2022 (Sections 323, 406, 504 and 506/34 IPC) pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, and in judicial custody since 18.01.2024, was held entitled to release on regular bail, regard being had to the facts and circumstances, the nature of allegation, the materials available, and the circumstance that the charge sheet had been submitted. Bail bond fixed at Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions of physical presence on every trial date, abstention from any or other similar offence, and non-tampering with prosecution evidences/witnesses; violation to result in cancellation of bail and custody by the learned Trial Court itself.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3129 of 2024

Biswanath Gosh ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Anuj Burman, Advocate. Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate. ---------

Order No. 06/Dated: 02^th August, 2024

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 277 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 323, 406, 504 and 506/34 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

As per FIR, allegation is that in the pretext of running business, petitioner along with co-accused took some money from the informant’s husband. In the meantime, the husband of the informant was admitted to hospital. But, petitioner and co-accused person did not return his money, due to lack of money, he died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in this case. There is allegation of taking loan on several occasions. Loan was advanced to the petitioner by the husband of the informant and about Rs.22,50,000/- which could not be repaid. Later on, informant’s husband became kidney patient due to depression, he died. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the offences under Section 406, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the I.P.C. is not made out. Petitioner is languishing in Judicial Custody since 18.01.2024 without rhymes and reasons. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the

P a g e 1 | 2

prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant/O.P. No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has cheated huge amount of Rs.22,50,000/- from the informant’s husband. He also issued cheques which was dishonoured and under depression his kidney was damaged and he died. Considering the gravity of offence tempted by the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve bail.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and in view of the fact that charge sheet has been submitted in this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 277 of 2022 subject to the conditions:-

(1) Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

(2) Petitioner shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

(3) Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

In case of violation of the aforesaid conditions, the bail of the petitioner shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned Trial Court itself.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Simran/

P a g e 2 | 2